Linux is More Expensive To Maintain Than Windows?

By Derek Sooman on December 3, 2002, 10:40 AM
According to an article I found at ZDNET.COM a study commissioned by Microsoft and released by IDC has (surprise, surprise) concluded that Linux has such high additional network support personnel costs that its more expensive to maintain than Windows. Now, why was I not expecting a Microsoft commissioned study to say otherwise.... ;) ??

I must be in the wrong business. Instead of messing around with a Windows 2000 domain and trying to keep all of the users happy, I should be running a server room full of Linux boxes somewhere and getting paid all of this extra $$$ that this study seems to propose that I would be getting.

All of this attack on Linux and the open source movement smacks me more of something motivated more by fear, than anything else. Why this constant stream of studies that seem to proclaim without a doubt that "Linux is rubbish"?? Why not more emphysis on Microsoft's own products and the strength of closed source?

Microsoft, not so mighty that they are beyond fear, fear open source methinks, and fear Linux. They fear what it might turn into.... something that numbskulls can use just like Windows. That day might be comming soon.

"[A]...document posted on the Open Source Initiative Web site said open source software had reached "commercial quality" and that such free software "poses a direct, short-term revenue and platform threat to Microsoft, particularly in the server space."

More here at ZDNET.COM here.

User Comments: 9

Got something to say? Post a comment
poertner_1274 said:
Isn't this always going to be the case? Why would microsoft do a study and say that Windows is more expensive to maintain? That just seems stupid that they say this. Just another ploy to get people to go with M$
Phantasm66 said:
But the point is that its so completely transparent. Essentially they have just put their hands in their pockets and PAID someone to say something, no doubt adding a generous funding grant to boot.
poertner_1274 said:
Another reason that M$ pisses me off.But I guess that is the way society works, if you have the money you get what you want. Gah all these people with money to burn and make things how they want them.
MoRulez said:
Microsoft is just another uber-huge corporations spreading preference for its business and products ( cough*McDonalds*cough) by manipulating smaller elements in society. Didnt anyone remember that sponsorship thing that Microsoft did in India? Giving away all that money to the people there. Eventually, those people will prefer Windows over anything else, and will buy Microsoft products just because they helped their country or they were brainwashed by Microsoft products while they were kids. Just like Micky D says they will donate 25% of their sales to charity. These little things mold us to use their products, subtle yet effective. I bet some Microsoft people helped these IDC people out somehow, maybe scholarships, or gifts , or something. Why would the average user care about Linux and its effectiveness in the first place against Windows?? Ok so maybe businesses do (for cost effectiveness) but this survey seems so anti-Linux and pro-Windows that its suspicious.
warr said:
heh. only the newbies and outsiders who never used linux will believe this kind of MS conspiracy.
poertner_1274 said:
And unfortunately I think those numbers are numerous. If a survey was conducted I think you would find that quite a few of them have no idea what linux is.
warr said:
as long as there is this kind of survey, there will be some percentage of people believing in it. So, MS will be sure they gain some.
Vehementi said:
Heh...I remember me overhearing a couple kids talking about how great Windows is in computer class...I approached them and asked them a few questions, and eventually one of the kids asked me what version of Windows I had. At the time I was dual booting with Red Hat 7.2 & Windows ME, and hadn't used WME in a couple weeks. I told him I didn't use Windows...and he backed off and said "Maaaac" in a prolonged, 'knowing' tone. I almost laughed.Well, considering that Linux is FREE, I think that....ahh...."study" is bogus. Plus, a W2k domain involves much more dedication and toil than a *nix one does.
goldenbb61 said:
There's something vaguely pathetic, and even desperate, about M$ comisioning studies to prove it less expensive, and more secure than Linux. I installed Novell's SuSe 9.2 Pro out of curiosity, (along side XP home) and while it's not quite ready for prime-time, my guess is that in couple of years Linux will loose it's "for geeks only" status. Updates in SuSe are handled by yast, which has so far preformed well automatically, and easily allows for network patch installation. As far as security goes, I feel much safer surfing, and downloading while on Linux, than I do on XP.
Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.